Sorry - I don't see it as screwing up over a source. At the time the source gave the info, it was just plain old info and he likely thought little of it. Now that it has blown up in his face he seems - unsure - about it. A likely story, indeed. And such backtracking under political pressure will only infuriate the muslims further, although it might makethe Pentagon feel a bit better.

And even if the story were false, I don't see how you could easily backtrack out of it.

Sorry - I don't see it as screwing up over a source. At the time the source gave the info, it was just plain old info and he likely thought little of it. Now that it has blown up in his face he seems - unsure - about it. A likely story, indeed. And such backtracking under political pressure will only infuriate the muslims further, although it might makethe Pentagon feel a bit better.

15 dead people over a story that his been retracted and apologized for--that seems pretty screwed up to me.

"People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged," he said.

That is from Rumsfeld. Pleasing though it is that he can recognise the importance of life, I cannot help but feel that it is the second part that is the motivator.

Mind you, his recognition of that fact that the image of the USA abroad is important is a useful first step. Perhaps the next will be to see just how much that image has been tarnished by this administration.

The pro-war Andrew Sullivan has summed this all up better than I ever could:

Quote:

We have yet to see what's at the root, if anything, of the Newsweek story. But I think it's telling that some bloggers have devoted much, much more energy to covering the Newsweek error than they ever have to covering any sliver of the widespread evidence of detainee abuse that made the Newsweek piece credible in the first place. A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to "*beep* Allah," after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran? Yes, Newsweek bears complete responsibility for any errors it has made; and, depending on what we now find, should not be let off the hook. But the outrage from the White House is beyond belief. It seems to me particularly worrying if this incident further intimidates the press from seeking the truth about what the government is doing in the war on terror. It is not being "basically, on the side of the enemy," as Glenn Reynolds calls it, to resist the notion of government-sanctioned torture and to report on it. It is patriotism and serving the cause that this war is about: religious pluralism and tolerance. The media's Abu Ghraib?? When Mike Isikoff is found guilty of committing murder, give me a call. Austin Bay still insists that Abu Ghraib did not constitute "deadly torture." The corpses found there (photographed by grinning U.S. soldiers) would probably disagree. (Will Bay correct?) Three factors interacted here: media error/bias, Islamist paranoia, and a past and possibly current policy of religiously-intolerant torture. No one comes out looking good. But it seems to me unquestionable that the documented abuse of religion in interrogation practices is by far the biggest scandal. Too bad the blogosphere is too media-obsessed and self-congratulatory to notice.

Absolutely ridiculous! How is Newsweek responsible for those deaths? They print a report and some people murder others. Do we think for one second that the report is the cause of the murders, or the murderers' unrestrained rage is the cause?